January 07, 2008

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, both of whom returned to television Monday without their writing staffs, largely devoted their first shows of 2008 to discussions of the Writers Guild of America strike, which began two months ago.

They also unveiled new titles for their Comedy Central programs.

For Stewart, his show has become “A Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” Colbert’s program is now “The Colbert Report,” with an uncharacteristic emphasis on the “bert” part of the host’s last name (normally his surname is pronounced Col-bear).

“‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’ is a show that we do with our very creative team of field producers and correspondents and studio people and video people and of course our writers," Stewart said. "…From now on until the end of the strike, we will be doing ‘A Daily Show with Jon Stewart’ but not ‘The Daily Show.’”

Stewart in particular seemed vexed by the topic of the strike and repeatedly emphasized the fact that his show was returning under “uncomfortable circumstances.”

After filling the first half of his show with improvised material, some of which referred to the political developments of the last few weeks, Stewart talked about the strike with his guest for the evening, Ron Seeber, a professor of labor relations at Cornell University.

In his interview with Seeber, Stewart alluded to the fact that the WGA recently reached a deal with David Letterman’s production company, Worldwide Pants. That development led to the return of Letterman’s CBS late-night show with a full complement of writers.

Shouldn’t the WGA reach that deal with other shows, including, for example, “The Daily Show”? “Let’s say you’re on basic cable but you’ll [sign the same deal Letterman’s company got] and you’ve gotten your company to say OK, even though they clearly think you’re insane,” Stewart said.

“Are they being arbitrary?” Stewart said in reference to the WGA. “Would you consider [the lack of a deal for ‘The Daily Show’] anti-Semitism? …The whole reason I got into this business is because I thought we controlled it,” joked Stewart, who is Jewish.

He made a few jokes at the WGA’s expense (in a mock serious tone, he noted, “Oh my God, you got Sean Penn to advocate your cause!”). But most of his shots were aimed at the producers’ side of the dispute.

If the Internet is really not a profit center, then why did Viacom, which owns Comedy Central and "The Daily Show," sue YouTube, he asked. “Well, they sued [YouTube] for a billion dollars… If there were real money in the Internet, don’t you think they would have gone with a believable figure?”

Seeber had no answer to Stewart’s questions about when or how the strike would end, or to this query: “Do most negotiations end with a hug?"

For Colbert, who’s apparently calling himself Col-BERT for the duration of the strike, the labor action played right into the hands of his TV persona, a dyed-in-the-wool conservative.

“Why am I doing this show tonight?” he said, after shedding his long (and fake) strike beard, “… I have always been anti-labor, always been anti-union. This is completely politically consistent.”

After interviewing political commentator Andrew Sullivan about the rise of Barack Obama, Colbert talked to another labor expert, Harvard’s Richard Freeman.

Colbert made a chicken-and-egg analogy about the strike: “The capitalists are the chickens and workers are the eggs that we have the right to scramble.”

By the way, it looks as though “The Daily Show” will not be visited by actors or celebrities this week (most actors are not crossing picket lines to appear on late-night shows). The show, which often features Stewart interviewing authors and political commentators, has booked Republican writer David Frum for Tuesday and CNN’s Lou Dobbs for Thursday.

The concept of a writer's strike is ludicrous but i know that newspaper people are only going to sympathize with their cohorts. Unions should be for people put into harsh conditions and paid poorly, such as Walmart, etc., not for office workers using electronic equipment. give me a break!
Jon Stewart is a very poor excuse for trying to be Steve Allen with his comic crew. He should be happy he has at even 1% of the viewing audience wasting their time watching his show.

I don't take easy offense by jokes, I love Jon Stewart and his work, and I fully support the cause the writers are fighting for.
With that said, the joke Stewart cracked about the strike being "nine times worse than 9/11" was real bad. I'm sure it'll give O'Riley and other blowhards fodder for years to come. Too bad for Stewart.

I honestly enjoyed last night's Daily Show a lot, in part because it was a reminder that Jon is a really funny guy, which often goes unnoticed because of how often he plays the straight man to his correspondents.

Colbert and Stewart aren't scabs. Did they vote to go on strike? I don't think so. In that case, forcing them to strike is imposing the will of the many (other writers) onto the few (those who want to continue working). They are allowed to do their show if they want -- what logic takes that away from them?

I thought the Daily Show last night was absolutely brilliant. I thought Jon Stewart took a really tough and uncomfortable situation and turned it into comedic genious. It did seem sort of as though something was missing on the show in the way he conducted himself, as if he were sad about something, or maybe it was the lack of correspondents. All that did for me though was change the mood from a news show to a stand up act. I couldn't stop laughing the whole time, even for much of the interview. Colbert on the other hand progressed as though nothing was different. He was brilliantly funny as well, though I think not quite as funny as Jon was. I hope this strike ends soon, but only because I want the writers to get the cut of the profits that they deserve (more on a matter of principle than anything else), and not because I think the two shows can't go on without them.

You know, I thought both shows were pretty funny. I thought his interview was a bit boring, with his improve material a bit lacking on that. But I thought the other stuff was vintage Stewart.

In response to the comment from Jose about Stewart's 9/11 joke. I think that joke was right on and I think you may have misunderstood his meaning. He was being ironic/sarcastic. I think he was showing that both sides (Writers and Producers) have been their fair share of ridiculous. And he was saying that this thing shouldn't lasting this long. 9/11 only had shows off for a week. This stike had them off for 9 weeks, and even though they are back are still not at 100%. There was no maliciousness in the joke. I think he was saying that the fact that the two sides won't even talk and that it has lasted this long is ridiculous. I couldn't agree more!

LT, that is the most ignorant view of unions I've ever read. Unions are for people who want to band together to improve their situation. The physical demands of a job have nothing to do with what a worker deserves to get paid or how he/she should be treated. The writers are paid less than the producers, directors and stars of all the shows you like to watch, and yet they are the ones who create it all. The ideas are theirs, the words that are read are theirs. If there's new money to be made off their ideas, don't you think they should get a piece of it as well? And if you don't, well, enjoy all the reality shows this year because they think they do and they're not going back to work until they get it.

Artzi: Stewart and Colbert are members of the WGA, but we don't know how they voted in the strike authorization. They were probably required to come back by Viacom, which has a stake in their production companies (Spartina and Busboy Productions). This is the same conundrum that Leno, O'Brien, and Kimmel have - their shows are not wholly owned by their production companies like Letterman and Ferguson. If they did not come back, force majeure would take effect and their deals would be voided. They are not scabs as long as they do not write their own material, and technically Colbert cannot perform the character of "Stephen Colbert". However, I wonder if WGA will come down hard on them because of the perception that they wrote material for the show and/or the use of a character created for a show.
L T: The writers unionized back in the 1930s when the studios were determined to pay the writers next to nothing and keep all the profits for themselves. Today, the studios want to give the writers jack for Internet and mobile broadcasting (this is the direction we're going, TV will be dead eventually). The unions are trying to protect their livelihood for themselves and for future generations of writers. Plus, most writers are middle-class at best (the multi-million dollar writers are few and far between), and because of the nature of their work, they have to fight for residual payments (they are not paid upfront for their work, some is held back for if the show goes into syndication).
Okay, union speechifying over. I thought the 9/11 joke was in poor taste, and so did the audience (which was live, IMHO). The uncomfortable pause before some chuckles was enough of a clue for me.

The whole "they didn't vote for the strike!" argument is ludicrous. If a state proposition is passed into law by a majority vote, a citizen of that state who DIDN'T vote for the law still follows majority rule. Called democracy.

I didn't vote for GW in 04. Is he my president? I thought he was.

Unions, I believe, are the only strength workers have in a free society like ours. I support the WGA and hope the studios get back to negotiations. I'm disappointed in Conan, Leno, Stewart, and Colbert, and refuse to watch their programs until this thing is resolved.

Actually, I'm sure they DID vote to go on strike. They're members of the WGA. But they're also producers of their shows, and as such were forced to go back on the air by Comedy Central. So they're not scabs either. They simply wear two hats.

And as for unions, no matter the workers' situation, when you're dealing with these huge, soulless corporations, who willingly lie, cheat and steal for their shareholders' bottom line - you've got to stick together somehow!

What's with all the Daily Show hate? The show was hilarious, and Jon did fine. Sure, none of them should be going to work without writers, but what can one do when forced?

By the way, Colbert was as hammy and unfunny as always. Childish screaming and ranting is not humor; nor is the persona he plays night in and night out. We get it, Steven -- you're a right-wing blowhard who really isn't. Ha...ha...yawn...

i thought a daily show was really funny and almost experimental. it doesn't surprise me that people were unable get the humor, or be really offended by the 9/11 comments. i turned it off when the interview started, but the opening of the show was classic.

The notion that unions are only acceptable for certain classes of people is ludicrous and proves how important this strike is. Unions are necessary anywhere that owners exploit their employees, and if LT were lucky enough to be in one, he or she would understand.

Technically, as Guild members, Stewart and Colbert are scabs. Well meaning scabs, since they went back to work so that the rest of the shows' staff would not be fired, but nonetheless they are crossing the picket line. And regardless of how they personally voted (if Artzi Shlomo actually knows), the whole point of a union is solidarity with your fellow members, so they are obliged to follow the group's will.

This strike is important because it concerns basic fairness - getting paid for the true value of your work. That is something that everyone should support. The studios have bragged about the billions that they stand to make off the Internet. The people responsible for the product that will earn those billions deserve to be fairly compensated.

Both shows were great, the interviews were amazing.The 9/11 joke was mocking how pointless this whole issue is, people are getting all upset about this, and yet when 9/11 happened, we went back to work like it was nothing.

Jon seems angry, plain and simple. As far as I am concerned the WGA should be disbanded. If your story is good people will pay good money for it, if someone comes in and does it cheaper, sucks to be you! Get a real job!

We have illegal immigrants taking jobs from hard working low payed skill workers, but who cares about that? Johnny Writter can barley afford to live in Beverley Hill's on his salary....

Did Stewart try to cut letterman's deal and get denied? Is wikipedia correct when it says
"Due to the writers' strike, the show went on hiatus on November 5, 2007. The show returned on January 7, 2008, despite the continuing strike. Stewart has stated that he agreed to go back on the air after he was threatened with the wholesale firing of the crew of the show. The show will continue to honor the strike, with neither the show's writers nor Stewart performing their normal writing duties"

And as Stewart is one of the writers for the show, I think it is unfair to attack him for the level of humor, as if the strike was over and he had made the same joke about 9/11 (which by the way was intended to point out just how pig headed the producers are being about the issues in the strike, treating it like it's the end of the world to pay the writers for *shock* writing!)

The fact of the matter is if Stewart had to throw himself on the sword of scabbing to save the crews' jobs, then it is unsavory on the part of whoever owns comedy central this week and should be held up to public scrutiny to shame them. Basically forcing Stewart to go back under duress.

And if the Writer's guild decided that the Daily show wasn't worth a seperate deal then they are way off. Not only should they negotiate a deal with Comedy Central for both Stewart's and Colbert's shows, but they should use both shows to get news out about the strike. They could have a great ally in their struggle in these shows.
And People who say they don't get enough Viewership to warrant a seperate deal, go to your favorite Search engine and filter for News articles on Daily Show, for something with low viewership there sure are a lot of news stories out there about this.

Also on the subject of Colbert's show being more polished... Stewart writes for both shows... and it makes more sense for Colbert's persona to be polished, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they put more effort into giving Colbert's script more attention.

And I can't imagine anyone would know how Colbert and Stewart voted except them. But if I had to guess, I'd say as writers themselves they voted FOR it.

I understand that the talk show hosts have come back to keep the rest of their staffs employed. But I wonder how/if Jon Stewart will be able to justify hosting the Oscars. Of course, considering what's just happened to the Golden Globes, maybe it won't even be a consideration.

there seems to be two lingering 'believes' in here. One that the strike is stupid because writers are not really workers, because they work inside a building just writing stuff, as if they dont suffer the same harsh conditions of economic harshes like the rest of workers. (writers = rich guys) which is a myth, only the minority actually make a fortune out of it. The majority of writers on shows only get to work from time to time, some even go months withtout a job, which is why they need unions as a fallback to help them. Just because they dont work in hellish conditions, lets say inside of a volcanoe, doesnt mean they dont get to suffer the same harsh conditions during unemployment conditions, let alone the problems of healthcare and pentions... the residuals is their only source of income during those harsh times... seriously if you think writers dont deserve to strike, let alone to have an union, in comparison to other labor unions, then you have a twisted idea of what the writers must be suffering.

now, on the note that jon and colbert are scabs. I dont think they are. first they were forced to come back to work, either because of contractual obligations, or the possible risk of their entire staff (you thought they only employed writers only?), being on the street. now the rest of the staff (or non-writers i should say) wont benefit from the strike, since they are not writers, and because of that they are the ones that suffer, not matter who wins or loses... at the end unless a solution comes, everyone looses. which is why they came back to work...
and if you think thats no excuse to come back, that instead they should have sacrificed themselves, or their entire staff for the cause... then my friend you are looking for a martyr, which they are not, they are men (good men) with flaws and they cannot sacrifice the lifehood of others for a cause that wont benefit the working staff, thats too much to ask, too much of a burden to carry and i dont envy them...

Amy, I don't think it's a matter of the WGA not thinking that Stewart and Colbert aren't spongeworthy. But the WGA can't strike a separate deal with Comedy Central. That's not where the buck stops. Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, one of the mega-corporations that won't come to the negotiating tables. I'm sure the WGA would love nothing more than to strike a deal. But it would affect every show that Viacom touches, and Viacom isn't willing to loosen its grip on the almight dollars they'd have to pay out.

Are any of you actually paying union dues? My husband and i are, and I can tell you that "industry" unions are an absolute corrupt and ridiculous entity.
I side with the writers only because of the fact the only thing WORSE than money grubbing Unions, are money grubbing corporations.

However, they are both one and the same. Same mentality, same purpose. Domination and intimidation.

I think the writers should be paid for writing content on the internet. With that said, I think that the writers going on strike ~ and ~ the producers being bullheaded enough to let the writers go on strike (especially for this long) is bad for both of them! Stewart and Colbert do not deserve to be called scabs. They have to come back due to contract, their staffs, etc. If the writers hadn't struck a deal with Letterman and Ferguson, then maybe Leno, Conan, Kimmel, Stewart and Colbert wouldn't be forced to go back on air to compete. Isn't that what Stewart was alluding to ~ the deal with Letterman's co. is a bit arbritrary, and not helping their cause. ....... and ultimately - if many of the viewers get out of the habit of watching tv because everything is a re-run ........ then both the writers and producers have lost a large percentage of their source of income ... because really, the viewers are the customers. Neither party should have needed to resort to this strike! Can't they all be reasonable, rationale adults that can at least come up with a plan for the next year or two and then sit back down at the table again then?

Here's a thought for BOTH parties - go back to the table for the sake of the viewer's!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I NEED The Daily Show and The Colbert Report back to lampoon and highlight the craziness of the politicians, the primaries, and the people who cover them.

I'm also hoping that they, like Letterman, can throw some rocks at the studios and the fatcats to get them to give the writers a share of internet profits like they should've from the start. FAIR is FAIR. The corporations who control the major studios and the major programs are anything but fair. I hope Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will do that, and force the Viacom and Fox and Warners back to the table to negotiate in good faith.

Unions are meant to protect commodity-level labor -- i.e. workers whose individual characteristics and qualities have little to no impact on the quality of their work and therefore hold no bargaining power versus the employer.

Writers are not commodity-level labor. They are educated individuals with widely varied worldviews, experiences, and skills that _directly_ impact the quality of their work. They do not require the protection of a union because the very nature of their work provides them with ample bargaining power.

"A" Daily Show's opening segment felt very much like a stand up act that Stewart crafted himself. And it worked on me, because I had many laugh-out-loud moments. The "Moment of Zen," of the writers picketing outside the Daily Show studio was poignant. Stewart was right for openly expressing his being "uncomfortable." His situation now is one of his politics conflicting with his and his nonstriking coworkers' wish to remain gainfully employed.

Colbert was on a roll starting with his bit talking to Stewart during the transition period between the two shows, with the fake beard that "somehow" got caught in his paper shredder. His opening bit was also hilarious, though the extended applause part was cheap and overdone. I got the joke there but it took away from funny time.

Their respective interview sessions felt like they always do, except for the topic at hand (the strike).

Too many are critical, who apparently didn't really watch the shows last night, have prejudices against the shows, or lack irony detectors when listening to the hosts. Also too much disingenuous commentary on the strike itself. Those who aren't fully informed on the matter should refrain from commenting on it.

So far Stewart and Colbert both make better "scab" talk show hosts than Conan, in my opinion. I'm a Letterman watcher so I don't know how Leno's doing and won't comment on him.

What is so great about a union? Why can't a person stand up for him or herself by seeking employment elsewhere? If they'll be missed so badly, someone will work to keep them. If they go without being missed, they can't be all that spectacular anyway, and probably don't deserve the wage they are currently getting. Stop crying and whining about crossing lines and scabs and blah, blah, blah. Be self empowered. I've worked for bad people before. I've always gotten a new job or a new boss. Maybe I'm lucky that way. Stewart & Colbert did the right thing by working to earn their checks (which is more than anyone can say for the writers).

I'm glad they came back simply because the national political machinery is in full swing and for Stewart and Colbert to not comment on it in some form would be disingenuous to the concept of the both shows.

I also think it's necessary for both shows to comment on the strike however uncomfortable. Both Stewart and Colbert are writers and satirists. The strike is preventing them from doing their jobs while simultaneously forcing them to do their jobs.

I'll take the uncomfortable commentary over no commentary at all. By the by, if you were offended by the 9/11 joke last night I'm not sure if you've ever truly "gotten" what The Daily Show is about. I think too many people have an "outrage switch" that's flipped whenever that date is mentioned, regardless of context.

I would feel like a scab watching either Stewart or Colbert - however he's pronouncing his name. They are members of the Guild themselves which makes it all the more gross that they're breaking the strike.

The Internet has been a disaster for us writers - I look to the strikers to help the rest of us.

What a horrible position Jon and Stephen are in! Shame on the producers for forcing them into it. Even more reason to support the writers through all of this.

If it is true (as Jon eluded to in his show) that Viacom agreed to strike a deal with the writers for the Jon Stewart show, then the writers are missing a huge opportunity to get their message out via "A Daily Show". No one can skewer Goliath like Jon and his crew.

Here's something I think it's been said 4 million times...but none of you seem to be able to get it through thier head.

Colbert and Stewart are members of the WGA, yes, so, technically, they are scabs.

However, the rest of the production crew; camera operators, sound guys, editors, grips, cable men...thier jobs may not of been secure. Do YOU want to be responsible for X number of people losing thier jobs...espically right now...when thier line of work is going to be in very low demand. No. That would be a dirty. Stewart made a point of saying The Daily Show staff was a family....and sometimes, you bend for family members. I'm sure a lot of that crew has been there for quite some time.

And one more thing, you writers complain the internet is killing you? What do you think not working is doing? There's no new content being created so where are we going? The internet; where there are a few people creating perfectly good content...what's going to happen if this strike goes on for a year? You are more concerned about how much you're making rather than your art. If you truely cared about your art, you wouldn't care if you made a living off it...yes, everyone has to make a living..so..find other talents to fill in the gaps.

Pretty soon you're going to find you've struck yourselfs right out of jobs...or, it'll be a while before even wants to consider doing anything...think about it..what good is having a bunch of crew around if there's nothing being made....and it takes time to hire people...and you think those same people would want to work for you? probably not.

We were at the taping of the first show and for those of you who say Jon was unprepared was not true. During the taping Jon spoke about many things which were funny and intelligent but he ran overtime and they had to edit a lot of what was said. I personally thought the aired show left out a lot of the funny segments that we saw, such as John Oliver reporting from outside the studio. Also, the laughter was NOT canned. There were a lot of inside jokes that the audience understood but unfortunately the television viewers couldn't see that. I did watch the Colbert Report on TV and thought Steven was great.

Being n strike doesn't mean you have to stop being a comedian or stop performing on TV. You can write for yourself under various rules. And there's a real difference between people who "honored" the strike for a day before going back (Ellen DeGeneres) and people who were forced back.

And there's a difference to people who were forced back and are covering the strike and people who are doing bad stand-up.

And while it's bad that they were forced back without writers, they are actually bringing attention to the strike. Without writers to write about the strike it has much less of an impact in the news and people's minds.

@LT

"The concept of a writer's strike is ludicrous but i know that newspaper people are only going to sympathize with their cohorts. Unions should be for people put into harsh conditions and paid poorly, such as Walmart, etc., not for office workers using electronic equipment. give me a break! "

Clearly, you don't know a lot about writing, or why the writer's are striking. Simplified version--Writer's get paid for their material being shown on TV. But when videos were a new technology, the deal written with the producers meant that writers got paid much much less for when their work--TV shows, movies went to video. That same deal holds for DVDs. And writers get paid nothing for online content. The producer's guild calls it "promotional material"....even when there are ads or someone is buying it from itunes.

Less and less is on TV, syndication isn't the same. I know people who only watch online, or rent or buy DVDs and for all of that, the writers either don't get paid at all or get paid terribly--a significantly worse deal than the TV one and there's been no allowance for inflation. Actors and directors have the same sort of deals the writers do. So if it's a video or DVD or online, producers make out like bandits because they don't have to pay residuals to everyone.

Not every writer is ridiculously successful or rich. It's not always even work and a lot of people can't afford not to get paid, or paid terribly. There are lots of writers who are successful in the industry but still have to do other work sometimes. In strikes like this some people lose everything, and a lot of those people don't have a lot.

Do Stewart and Colbert need the money from downloads or DVDs, etc? Probably not. But the point of a strike is everyone banning together to make a difference. If just the people who were being desperately hurt by the system tried to do something, they'd have no negotiating power.

The idea that because you think writers have good working conditions they don't need to be paid is ridiculous. And that's what it boils down to. Writers and directors and actors and all these people come together to make something and the producers say "we'll pay you every time we use this". But the producers were "taking a risk" on videos, a new technology, so writers, etc. should be paid less, because it might not work, so everyone should agree to be paid less. And online content being sold--that's the producers working to promote the show, so that doesn't count.

The mass public doesn't tune into the inner workings of the strike. All they see is TV they like repeating during times they'd most like to see them. Stewart and Colbert are both WGA members, but unlike most WGA strikers, they have the opportunity to come back under contractual duress and constantly make the case for the writers. Neither of them look or speak normal on air, which is deliberate in my mind. Are they scabs? Technically yes, but unlike the picketing writers, they have an opportunity to reach the average American and show them how different TV is without writers while at the same time never missing the opportunity to mention the strike itself.

Stewart and Colbert both stemmed the tide of innocent layoffs, while bringing the cause to a public that doesn't care to independently decide where they fall over internet rights. The more the public knows, the better we all are, and after 2 days I completely respect what Stewart and Colbert are doing. Very few scabs use their position to explain why the strike is happening.

I think these shows demonstrate how ludicrous both positions are (the company's and writer's positions). The shows were both pretty good, meaning that maybe the writers aren't as necessary and special as they think they are. There are at least two factors when determining how much someone gets paid: the return generated for the business/organization and the market price to acquire that return. So even if each writer is providing $1000 for every hour of their time, if there are any number of unemployed writers out there who are willing to do that job for $20 an hour, then the writers "should" be paid $20 an hour. Inflating wages will only make more writers unemployed because the corporations will decrease the number of writers working to create shows like the Daily Show.

SubtleCaffeine, the writers are not going to strike themselves out of a job, they're going to get what they want. Sure they're not getting paid right now but they've known for a while that a strike was a strong possibility and the smart ones would have planned for that. It will be tough for them but strikes are never easy.

In the meantime, yes we've moved on to other things. The Internet is a great source of entertainment as are reading, going to the movies, or just going outside and breathing some fresh air. But then, we're not the one paying their salaries and if we find something else to do, it doesn't put the writers in a tough position, it puts the studios in a tough position. They are the ones who are going to start losing money soon. TV networks are already going into reruns and resurrecting reality shows that were cancelled years ago. Movie studios are fine right now, but they're going to find themselves in a tough position later in the year if they don't settle soon.

The writers have all the power right now and I don't understand why so many people don't see that. They've pretty much paralyzed the entertainment industry and with both the SAG and DGA contracts coming up for renewal soon, things could get very messy for the studios if they don't start to bend.

SubtleCaffeine - The writers are fighting to get a share of rebroadcast rights for their shows on the Internet. Right now, they get nothing. In fact, the studios are labeling the shows on the Internet as "promotional" material, which means they don't have to pay a penny to the writers, actors, and crew (whose residuals go to their health and pension plans). We're moving toward shows and movies broadcasting over the Internet, which means that the writers, actors and crew won't get a dime for Internet rebroadcast. I mean, look at iTunes and YouTube. Why shouldn't they get paid when their creations are reused over a new medium? The WGA learned their lesson after the VHS debate in the early '80s. They were had then, and they don't want to be had now. Besides, the studios talk out of both sides of their mouths, saying that the Internet won't make the studios any money to the writers, actors, crew, etc., but telling shareholders and media that Internet is the best thing since sliced bread and will make the studios tons of money. Well, which one is it? In my opinion, they need to start talking to Silicon Valley and working on creating deals with Google, MSN, and Apple to create original programming for the Web. The writers should just cut out the middleman (i.e. the studios) and go to the source.

the last comment from subtle caffeine is right on. it's quite obvious stewart does not want to be a 'scab', but other people's livelihood depends on the show getting produced. i think john oliver's report last night on the daily show was really well done. also, stewart seems to be much more caustic without writers, or maybe the writers just water everything down.

Affiliate links disclaimer:

Clicking on the green links will direct you to a third-party Web site. Bloggers and staff writers are in no way affiliated with these links that are placed by an e-commerce specialist only after stories and posts have been published.